Coroner: US troops killed journalist

[Neil D]

Ah, the glorification of war...It brings out the best of humanity. Fear, oppression, dominance, and that's just among your allies.....

Friday 13 October 2006, 16:42 Makka Time, 13:42 GMT

Lloyd was killed by US forces in Iraq, the coroner said

A British coroner has ruled that a television journalist was unlawfully killed by US forces in Iraq in 2003.

Andrew Walker said on Friday he would ask the British director of public prosecutions to bring those responsible for the death of Terry Lloyd to justice.

He said: "Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming."

The coroner said Lloyd, a reporter for the ITN network; Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman; and French cameraman Fred Nerac were killed outside Basra on March 22 2003.

The Pentagon said its own investigation into the incident concluded in May 2003 that "US forces followed the applicable rules of engagement".

"The Department of Defence has never deliberately targeted non-combatants, including journalists," the Pentagon said in a statement

In a crossfire

The veteran correspondent was first shot in the back in a crossfire between US and Iraqi forces and then shot in the head by US troops as he was taken away in a minibus for treatment.

"There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire upon the minibus," Walker said.

Since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, 118 journalists and media assistants have been killed, according to Paris-based Reporters sans Frontieres.

Fifty-one have been abducted, of which five are currently being held hostage.

According to figures compiled by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 2006 has been the deadliest year for the media in the conflict so far with 25 deaths, compared with 22 last year and 24 in 2004.

[Dr. Shane]

These journalists that cover these wars certainly deserve our respect and admiration. It is a risky job and often not a pleasant one either.

[Key Guy]

If I am to feel sorry for journalists that purposely put themselves in harm's way, I can't. They knew ahead of time what they were getting into.

This is another example of why wars should be fought quickly, as nastily and harshly as you can, and get them over with as soon as possible. When you drag a war on and on, you invite even more death and destruction with less to show for it.

If you must fight, do it with all of your might!

[Neil D]

If I am to feel sorry for journalists that purposely put themselves in harm's way, I can't. They knew ahead of time what they were getting into.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Are you saying that we are not doing all that we can...now????

We are going to great lengths to minimize civilian causualties and historically that is not the way to win wars. Recently a study was released that estimated 655,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the invations and 70% of them have been killed by terrorist or insurgant groups. So only 30% of civilians in this war have been killed by Coalition forces. Those that want us to use more force (I am not including myself in that group) would want that number to be the opposite.

[Key Guy]

Neil,

Last questions first:

"Are you saying that we are not doing all that we can...now????"

Yes, I am saying that. We pussy-footed around in Korea, 'Nam and now Iraq. All of these conflicts did not have to be the quagmire we established for ourselves. Just ask Gen. MacArthur. He had it figured out, but was rebuffed in Korea. Patton had it figured out in WWII, but was muzzled.

"And if we are not, are you implying that we need to lob a few Nukes over there to shape these people up?"

I'm not pushing for that, but you can't rule it out as an option. We have more technology, bombs, arms, and soldiers that know how to fight than any other nation. We KNOW how to get the job done. We just aren't doing it with the available might that we have.

"And if we did to those 'down and dirty' war tatics, what effect are we gonna have on those who remain alive?"

Wars always involve broken things and dead people. Those are 2 facts that cannot be denied. When one commits to a fight, the winner is typically the one that commits all the way. Who in their right mind fights with self-imposed limits? That's absurd. You're gonna have dead people. My opinion (along with some of our best military minds) is that a short nasty war actually saves lives.

"I want to compare this thought against these journalists and the soldiers. I can't help but think that the soldiers also had a better idea of what they were going into, being they were trained and all, but they were unwilling participants. They just didn't make the decision to go to war."

Unwilling participants? Please! Any soldier worth his salt is prepared and anxious to get the job done. Our soldiers are frustrated that they cannot be turned loose to fight like they were trained. See above. They know how to fight and win, they WANT to fight and win. Political correctness does not work on the battlefield.

[Bravus]

War (and the threat of war) should be the last resort, not the first. Yes, America has the power to force every other country on earth to its will if it so chooses... as long as they queue up to be forced one at a time. But they're not: being over-committed in Iraq and Afghanistan means the US military is over-stretched, and would likely require a draft in order to act in Iran or North Korea, or both.

But it has been the Bush administration's strong preference for violence and the threat of violence over diplomacy and negotiation that has created this situation, and more violence is not going to solve it. Agreed, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous, possibly delusional dictator, and he was not created by the US. But an approach that did not demonise North Korea and exclude it, and that continued to engage in good faith diplomacy and negotiation, would have had a much greater probability of success in limiting North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Bottom line: threats and punishment are one possible approach to parenting, but an approach likely to lead to rebellion rather than compliance, in the longer term. Same in international relations.

[Dr. Shane]

I am more willing to give President Bush the benifit of the doubt. I think he expected to have a victory in Iraq like his dad did in Kuwait. He did not plan for the insurgancy which is what has caused all the civilian causualties and much of the bad will against America.

[phkrause]

I agree with you bravus that war should be the last resort. But if you do go to war I have to agree with keyguy that you need to go in and do the job. The polititions should not get in the way. Look what happen in the first Iraq war. They asked the general what he needed and they gave him free rein and he got the job done. And as keyguy said look at what went down in korea, nam & the 2nd Iraq war. The polititions have been running these wars and they have just dragged on and on. And with many unnecessary deaths. Just my 2 cents worth.

pkrause

[Naomi]

Quote:

I agree with you bravus that war should be the last resort. But if you do go to war I have to agree with keyguy that you need to go in and do the job.

I so agree with both statements. If you start it, get it done!